Ellsberg: Journalists Who Attack Glenn Greenwald Are "Tools"

Not to mention people who are not journalists.

Daniel Ellsberg: Journalists Who Attack Glenn Greenwald Are 'Tools' Who Do 'the Work of the Government'America’s most famous whistleblower slammed the journalists attacking Greenwald and Edward Snowden.August 26, 3013 * AlterNet * By Alex Kane

America’s most famous whistleblower criticized the journalists attacking Glenn Greenwald in an interview with the New York Times. Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1969, slammed journalists Jeffrey Toobin and Michael Grunwald during a conversation with the Times’ media columnist David Carr.

“With Snowden in particular, you have a split between truly independent journalists and those who are tools — and I mean that in every sense of the term — of the government. Toobin and Grunwald are doing the work of the government to maintain relationships and access,” Ellsberg said.

Ellsberg was reacting to recent comments made by both CNN’s Toobin and TIME magazine’s Grunwald about Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange. Toobin recently said that Snowden belongs in prison and that David Miranda, Greenwald’s husband, was the equivalent of a “drug mule” for transporting documents between Berlin and Greenwald. Miranda was arrested by British authorities in Heathrow airport and held for nine hours.

Grunwald recently said on Twitter that he couldn’t “wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange.”

Carr also interviewed Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, who likewise criticized journalists taking on Greenwald. “I think the people in our business who are suspicious of Glenn Greenwald and critical of David Miranda are not really thinking this through,” said Rusbridger. “The governments are conflating journalism with terrorism and using national security to engage in mass surveillance. The implications just in terms of how journalism is practiced are enormous.”

Last week, I highlighted the connections between Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Wikileaks and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a front-group that was conveniently set up by Greenwald and his cohort Laura Poitras (who interviewed Edward Snowden on camera) just a month before Snowden began contacting Poitras and Snowden. Greenwald and Poitras are both board members of this front group, as is Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers fame.

Ellsberg penned an op-ed in the Washington Post yesterday defending Snowden's flight from justice, canonizing Snowden and dutifully serving up accolades to Greenwald and his employer (The Guardian), without once mentioning that he has at least a professional connection to Glenn Greenwald that could serve as a potential conflict of interest: Ellsberg sits on the Board of this front group with Glenn Greenwald. So much for transparency, I guess.

134. Oh that Peoplesview website again.

136. That's hilarious

I bet you're one of the people who was screaming crap about shooting the messenger when some didn't fall on their knees and worship Eric Snowden. Don't like the source? Think it's lying about the organization and the fact GG and Ellsberg are in bed together? How pathetically predictable.

89. A very descriptive term.

4. So that's where the 'mule' term that we saw here on DU came from.

I had a feeling it was a paid-for smear word, because when they pay for a smear campaign, you ALWAYS see the same words being spread around, whereas if it's just someone's opinion, it rarely goes beyond their own article.

I guess the paid for smear campaign on Snowden, by some 'brilliant' Private Security Employee was to include 'Drug War Language'.

They are so incredibly stupid, as we saw with the smear campaign against Greenwald in the emails that were exposed from HB Gary. They sound like grade schoolers. I hope they are working cheap because some of the money for this comes from our tax dollars and I could do a better job, IF I were a person of zero ethics.

9. They didn't do it subtly

I laughed a lot of times, because all I had to do was read a few posts that just came out from the usual suspects, and they were all using the same new smears at the same time.

Personally, I think they think we're idiots or something. We aren't like them- we don't gobble up talking points and opinions, we gobble up facts. We put our own stamp on what we call it. We're the dreaded "individuals."

52. I think it's mostly #2

The intent is not to find/defend the truth, but to poison the well. Inject doubt into the discussion.

The whole Moralez thing was textbook that way. Even when the facts were clear, they were busy smokescreening for the US.

Some of the posters have even dropped defending the President in a sideways fashion. They don't say they're doing that, but they are arguing against high level information releases from this admin. Someone else also pointed out that a fair number of them seem to be spooks- they're defending their livelyhood.

61. I believe there are some who are just diehard partisans.

I have a friend who has been conditioned to HATE THE REPUBLICANS!!! so much that he is willing to accept literally anything Obama does as long as it can be construed as somehow humiliating Republicans.

Some of our posters here are the same. They defend the NSA not because they believe in it's mission and activities, but because the agency's bad acts reflect upon the President. Since nothing can be allowed to reflect negatively on the President, the bad acts must be made to seem perfectly okay. Because Obama wouldn't do something wrong, would he?

23. I guess one doesn't need to be a journalist to be a tool eom

51. But the evidence you provide for Greenwald's supposed "lies" is not compelling.

And the evidence for the other side of the debate, that the NSA's surveillance program is broader and more invasive than previously believed, is very strong and has been corroborated by a large number of credible individuals including U.S. Senators, former intelligence professionals and respected journalists.

So who should be believe more? A growing cadre of knowledgeable, credible individuals or a pack of shrieking hyenas on the Internet?

25. linky?

58. why would he trust their lawyer?

really?! would you? so far, your "documented" lies are less than impressive, or as cut and dried as you'd like to believe. surely there are other instances of Greenwald's lies that you can present as evidence.

71. So you admit he lied. LOL! Which is it. Either he was offered a lawyer or he wasn't. He either had

73. no, i didn't admit he lied. i asked why he would trust their lawyer..

and explained that I wouldn't trust their lawyer either. he was granted access to his own attorney after being held for 8 hours. continue to spin this any way you'd like, but it's not gaining any traction, as evidenced by the continued requests for "documented" lies. you can provide the "documented" evidence to these lies, or you can continue to dig this hole you started on two months ago. your call.

material from Laurence Walsh's office dares to even comment on this topic.

From Isokoff on Toobin re his theft of classified material:

Toobin, it turned out, had been using his tenure in Walsh’s office to secretly prepare a tell-all book about the Iran-contra case; the privileged documents, along with a meticulously kept private diary (in which the young Toobin, a sort of proto-Linda Tripp, had been documenting private conversations with his unsuspecting colleagues) were to become his prime bait to snare a book deal. Toobin’s conduct enraged his fellow lawyers in Walsh’s office, many of whom viewed his actions as an indefensible betrayal of the public trust. Walsh at one point even considered pressing for Toobin’s indictment.

And from Walsh's Memoirs:

During our negotiations over the timing of the book’s publication, Toobin and his publisher surprised us with a preemptive suit to enjoin me from interfering with the publication or punishing Toobin for having stolen hundreds of documents, some of them classified, and for exposing privileged information and material related to the grand jury proceedings. I could understand a young lawyer wanting to keep copies of his own work, but not copying material from the general files or the personal files of others.

He needs to remove himself from commenting on 'the theft of documents' and consider him lucky that he never went to jail. He certainly made money from his own theft of classified material. He is no position to be commenting on this.

40. Very welcome. Again.

124. How is it diffferent to others like Old Elm Tree or Progressive Independent?

Both of those had sections devoted to moaning and complaining about DU. And both of those had lots of members who thought DU was a cesspool. The only difference between them and this one is that those two were pretty anti Obama, while this one looks to be really supportive of Obama

128. I'd be calling a bad bingo on that one...

Heard of Hawkeye X? He's one of the ones who runs OET. While I like the guy on a personal level, he's a tombstoned mega troll and multiple returned zombie who's said a lot of nasty stuff about DU. So, what's the difference again?

I'll give you a pretty irrelevant difference. I was a member of Progressive Independent, still am a member of OET, and going even further back hung out at People for Change, where there was also a whole lot of disgruntled tombstoned DUers venting and complaining about DU. I'm not a member of the forum Autumn linked to, mainly coz I don't think I've seen it till now, and I don't think I'd fit in ideologically there

129. There isn't any.

I was wholeheartedly agreeing with you Violet.

Oh and no, can't say I recall Hawkeye. I just never got into lurking on any of these other sites. I don't spend more then 30 min a day on DU on most days. However the pompous,clueless gasbaggery of DFP and the guy that runs it is worth of a cheap shot every now and then.

131. Oops. I need to read slower! Sorry...

I found the bitterness and pointless anger aimed at DU at its many offshoot sites to get tiring, which is why I never hung round much. Those and seeing this one in this thread made me realise that if ever I'm nuked I'd fade quietly into the sunset and not rage about it. Back in the old days at DU, a few friends got tombstoned and ended up on other sites getting obsessed about DU, and it came across as kinda pathetic to me. Most of the time I enjoy DU. but there have been times I've thought parts of it (I/P and the gungeon) are cesspools, so I just avoid those bits of DU now

133. Exactly Violet.

It's a website that I enjoy. Most of the time. And yeah, I have gotten sucked into the drama however the older I get the more other things become important. I appreciate the info this site gives me. I enjoy some of the posters. And yeah, the whole obsession schtick is rather pitiful.

I must admit using the "I support President Obama no matter what and if you don't you are no Democrat" argument can piss me off fast. Thus my feelings about that website. But hey, I hope the people over there enjoy the heck out of it. Better there then here.

130. It isn't any different.

48. Wow, what a lovely little board you have there

And I quote:

"I look at it this way, DFP serves a purpose that far exceeds the sad little cyber cess pool that is DU. Skinner screwed up his website because he was looking to maximize his profit. <snip> So DU is an isolated echo chamber... the last thing we want them to see is us wasting time venting about a bunch of losers. Our board is about getting Democrats elected and helping them achieve progress." DFP is an oasis for Democrats who support the party and the President"

65. That's not the end of the story. Yes his methods were slightly different than the methods

used by Snowden, but the end result was similar. And to suggest that he has lost his mind is ridiculous. Have you heard him speak lately or read any of his recent writings? Yes he is in his eighties now but he is articulate and sharp as a tack. I wish I had half his intellect. It seems that certain posters will gladly go down into the gutter to try to discredit this great man. Calling him a tool or calling him crazy is out of bounds and beneath this forum. I come here for intelligent discourse, not juvenile name calling and character assassination.

69. So, Ellsberg is the new Howard Beale

88. Hahaha. Shows how little you know about the actual Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg didn't have to

'document dump' (as you put it), since Ellsberg co-authored the PP at Defense Secretary McNamara's suggestion. But Nixon and Kissinger sure reacted as though Ellsberg had document dumped and were scared shitless he had the goods on their little adventures in Cambodia.

Unbeknownst to Nixon and Kissinger, Ellsberg's review had covered 1945-68 (LBJ's final year in office). But given Nixon's and Kissinger's crimes re Cambodia, they had damned good reason to worry.

67. your a bad boy/girl

68. "Everyone who disagrees with me is a tool" is a stance for ideologues and true believers:

it has no place in any practical political toolkit

Whether one wants to do electoral work or grassroots organizing, the name of the game is to make gains among the unconvinced. And taking the view "Everyone who disagrees with me is a tool" guarantees that won't happen much -- in fact, it's disruptive and guarantees losses from the already-convinced side

78. Alternet headline a bit misleading, and Ellsberg didn't call everyone who disagrees with him a tool.

<<"By no means was I treated as a hero when I first came forward. I was indicted and spent two years in court,” Mr. Ellsberg said in an interview. “But in those days, journalists were not turning on journalists. With Snowden in particular, you have a split between truly independent journalists and those who are tools — and I mean that in every sense of the term — of the government. Toobin and Grunwald are doing the work of the government to maintain relationships and access.”>>

<<Ellsberg was reacting to recent comments made by both CNN’s Toobin and TIME magazine’s Grunwald about Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange. Toobin recently said that Snowden belongs in prison and that David Miranda, Greenwald’s husband, was the equivalent of a “drug mule” for transporting documents between Berlin and Greenwald. Miranda was arrested by British authorities in Heathrow airport and held for nine hours.

Grunwald recently said on Twitter that he couldn’t “wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange.”>>

104. Except for those who can read he clearly uses the actions of individuals as standard for calling

them 'tools' , it is not disagreement with Daniel that is the metric. 'People who waste their money are fools' means that I think they are fools for wasting money, not for disagreeing with me about money.
You must be seriously hard up for something to type if that's what you came up with. This is English we are working in here.

91. This whole Glenn Greenwald wank-fest is ignoring the fact that Barton Gellman broke the story

And has been releasing new info in the front page of the Washington Post ever since.

So why did he get scooped by Greenwald?

Because he couldn't guarantee that the Post higher-ups (Don Graham and Fred Hiatt and Bob Woodward) wouldn't quash the story

before it went to press, thereby (supposedly, in Snowden's opinion) putting his life and liberty in danger,

and indeed the Post refused to run with the story until it got scooped,
because they take pains to represent whoever has real authority in Washington.

Snowden told Gellman he would no longer get an exclusive the day Gellman told him there might be some delay in getting it published. Then he released it to Greenwald and the very same week, the Guardian went with the story. The Post rushed Gellman's piece into a short article below the fold the same Thursday in order to avoid being scooped.

95. At one point Washington Post itself came out with piece asking if Greenwald is liable for espionage.

And then took pains to add "nobody is asking similar questions about Barton Gellman, who broke the story for the Washington Post."

This was in a news analysis article as well. I.e. "news analysis" about whether a rival agency's reporter is a traitor, in fine tradition of the Post's own Howard Kurtz, who destroyed the careers of CBS newscaster Dan Rather and his entire team over documents brought to light by DU's own Walt Starr that called into question then-President Bush's war record at a time when Kurtz and Bob Woodward were lobbying heavily to get in the President's good graces.

99. It seems to me it wants Greenwald to take all the credit, even while its own journalists assiduously

continue to report on the story, much to the consternation of Fred Hiatt and the insider set. what do you want to bet Gellman never gets offered advancement in the Washington Post? He'll probably have to move to another paper or online in order to get promoted. Like Hollywood, Washington eats its own.

96. Yeah, but knowing the Post's current editorial leadership, it likely would have been buried.

Don Graham is a Reaganite. Good riddance. Anypony is better than him, even the founder of Amazon (a man who, although he's essentially the modern William Randolph Hearst and singlehandedly responsible for bringing down the book publishing industry, is allegedly a liberal, nobody ever made that claim about Don Graham.)

143. That clip is too funny. thanks. nt

142. I like the term 'tools'

--it denotes and agenda, which we all actually have. But I think it is important to take a look at what you are ultimately 'tooling' for--is is the good of the all or is it the good of a few?

I think the mistake some people make is that to agree with the disclosure of corruption and the conspiracies of the few and powerful to control and rule over us instead of Representing us-- means that we are worshipping the messengers.

We are SO beyond that line of thinking that it has become actually hard to relate to that old argument. It would be best to keep up--here's a clue:

We are all on in the same boat, the same planet, and we who are disturbed by the loss of liberties and the creeping police state are fighting for YOU--whether we agree with all the petty personality talking points or not. I find it most useful to blame propaganda as a cultural virus, whose aim is to divide us--and leave it at that.

We are adults and should be able to agree to disagree on the small stuff, and unite on the big stuff--that is to do what we think is right and get out of our egotistical need to win in petty ways.

144. Glen couldnt even

post a real picture to go along with one of his stories so he just threw some computer parts on a table and took a picture.. and youre surprised not everyone is on pins and needles to hear what he has to say next?